| Bilbao Masters (2014) |
|
The 7th Bilbao Masters "final" (as defined by the Bilbao Masters organising committee) was held in Bilbao, Spain 14–20 September 2014. The tournament used the Sofia Rules, which forbids agreed draws before 30 moves, and the "Bilbao" scoring system of 3 points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss (though for ratings purposes the traditional scoring method is used). (1)
Crosstable:
01 02 03 04
1 Anand ** ½0 11 1½ 4 11
2 Aronian ½1 ** ½½ 1½ 4 10
3 Vallejo Pons 00 ½½ ** 01 2 5
4 Ponomariov 0½ 0½ 10 ** 2 5
Previous edition: Bilbao Masters (2013). Next: Bilbao Masters (2015).(1) Wikipedia article: Bilbao Chess Masters Final
|
|
| page 1 of 1; one game |
 |
 |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-25-14 | | cdx34919z: <Absentee: "Importance.... blah blah blah... Obviously...... rated game...... classical time controls...... la la la......"> A troll that doesn't give up so easily. Wow! I'm impressed! I've looked at this "Absentee" individual's comments going back a few years, so I know what I'm talking about. Other chess fans like to positively celebrate the achievements of players they admire, but this "Absentee" individual primarily spends their time belittling others, offering counsel where it is neither needed nor wanted. This "Absentee" individual will next move to some other thread, and argue about how someone's tournament wins in the 1990's were "irrelevant", because Capablanca and Fischer weren't playing in those tournaments, or some such profound insight. I really take no pleasure in doing this, believe me, I don't like personally criticising others... indeed, there are numerous other trolls on these pages, and all I had to do was to put them on my "Ignore" list... but this "Absentee" individual presents themselves as though they are someone who is reasonably knowledgeable about chess, and I've seen a few commentators wasting their time trying to debate things with this "Absentee" individual, which is why I've raised this. Look closely at "Absentee"'s comments, and it becomes obvious that there is perhaps a little bit of statistics scraped from various sources on the internet, but no other chess knowledge of any real substance. It is clear that Absentee offers nothing but fluffed-up pseudo-intelligent garbage, while repeatedly and persistently annoying and irritating other commentators. "Absentee" is a very sophisticated troll - appears intelligent, but is a troll, nonetheless. ANY debate or discussion with a troll, EVEN IF they appear to be making vaguely intelligent arguments (as trolls do, on rare occasions), is a serious waste of time, and - only encourages the troll further. Never argue with a fool, or he will drag you down to his level, and beat you at it - through sheer experience! |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | ekanth: Cdx : wonderfully put in words.couple of times I tried to write something like this on Absentees comments but cancelled it..no point in trying to logically respond to it..
Piyushranjan will learn that soon as well |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Billy Vaughan: While I fall on the Elo-trusting side of the line, I think it's reasonable to give some events and games more importance than others. A GM might experiment with openings or try a different approach of play during a "regular" tournament game, perhaps with a goal of developing themselves overall, and then go all in during championship qualifiers. As in any discipline, though, chess class is usually more or less indicated through the day-to-day results. It's no accident that the world champion is also the player who has won a majority of the important tournaments in the last five years and who has been rated the #1 player in the world by a large margin. Every world champion has been highly rated (it's not as if somebody #20 on the rating list is dominating the championship events). Ratings really are at least roughly commensurate with chess class, and while I understand being a bit miffed at people hanging on to every new number, the numbers do have their use. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: <Absentee> Thank you for so concisely explicating the limited value of ELO rating. |
|
Sep-25-14
 | | alexmagnus: I hold the same view - there is no difference in "telling about the strength" between a random tournament game and a WC game. |
|
Sep-25-14
| | alexmagnus: For this very reason I don't think the world champion is the best player. Or must be the best player. Because WC is just one event. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: <Billy Vaughan> I like ELO, too, yet also to a point. BTW, though Carlsen is tops now, note Botvinnik's, Petrosian's, Spassky's, Kramnik's and Anand's ELO/chessmetrics ranking while WC. Not #1, yet they won the games they needed to win. And this is why Anand is headed for another shot, and payday, with Carlsen, and this is why everyone else in not. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: <Sep-25-14
premium
member alexmagnus: For this very reason I don't think the world champion is the best player. Or must be the best player. Because WC is just one event.>Like it or not, the entire WC cycle which determines the WC is not "one event." The Grand Prix to qualify, or any of the tournaments to boost your rating enough for an invite to the candidates is not "one event." Why are you saying otherwise? |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Billy Vaughan: That is true. I think some of that can be explained by lag time between becoming strong enough to become world champion and actually doing it, some can be explained by championship privileges, and some can be explained by #1 often being pretty close to #2 and #3 anyway. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: <BV> all true. The 60's and the past 13 years illustrate perfectly. Both Spassky and Petrosian had lackluster performances during the decade. Yet when Petrosian had to defend his title, or Spassky had to qualify via candidates matches (twice), they got up for it. They knew which tournaments and matches paid their chess bills. And why does Carlsen's play and results take a dip now? These tournaments now are not as important. Why did Anand and Kramnik not perform as well in tournaments in general after becoming WC? Because they are not as important. And why are Kasparov and Karpov considered the greatest of champions? Because they did not take it easy, consistently winning with outstanding play for decades. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | EdZelli: Petrosian wins 1969 Soviet Championship (That's World Championship to you) and
that's 'lackluster'?
1st in San Antonio 1972 (with Karpov etc).
1st Amsterdam 1973. etc, etc
Beats Korchnoy in 71 match.
Do you know the meaning of lackluster? |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | EdZelli: Petrosian was also 1975 Soviet (World Champion) and that's also lackluster !! |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: <EdZelli> Petrosian had some lackluster performances from '64-'69, his WC tenure. Because he played well at other times doesn't negate my point. Thanks for getting the time frame completely wrong. Do you know the meaning of the 60's? And in '69, I and everyone else who matters knows the WC was between Spassky and Petrosian. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | anandrulez: Couple of interviews at Chess24.com . https://chess24.com/en/read/news/bo... , the title here is a misnomer , its more about Gulko than Carlsen . https://chess24.com/en/read/news/ra... . |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | anandrulez: I think Vishy should play more games like Game 9 of the W Ch . I mean you need to play openings that stand some chance as opposed to 1.e4 . I am not much of an opening expert , but can White avoid Berlin by any means ? I don't understand how you can't avoid it after playing e4 . |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | EdZelli: So 1969 Soviet (World Championship to you) was not in the 60's? Huh? |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | EdZelli: Why is there so much resentment toward Petrosian? Why are his achievements down-played in the west. Was his race and skin color offensive to you? |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | SetNoEscapeOn: Skin color??? |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Absentee: Nothing wrong with body painting, anyway. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: After his reign, eh?
Read the posts. The championship became more important to him after losing the WC. This is my point. Did you get that? |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | LucB: <<SetNoEscapeOn:> Skin color???> Ok, so I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who did a double-take. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: EdZelli: ah, transference, you seem to have an ax to grind regarding Petrosian. Your target is far off. I have great respect for Petrosian, and I applaud him for winning when it counted most. He began his prime in 1958, was briefly overshadowed by Tal before rising to eminence between 1962-1969. Nonetheless, after winning the WC, he had many performances which were lackluster, and many in the chessworld felt this was unbecoming of a WC. Truth is, Petrosian won the most important event during that time, namely, the 1966 WC, despite ELO nonsense and predictions. And this is my point. Or did you miss that? Your posts indicate that you did. In short, I am praising his ability to rise to the occasion during a reign that was rife with lackluster performances. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: I praise Gelfand for the same reason; a professional who time and again shows how good he is when it counts. Not always of course, but more often then would be expected. He understands that all tournaments and matches are not created equal, and prepares accordingly. |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Absentee: <Everett: Truth is, Petrosian won the most important event during that time, namely, the 1966 WC, despite ELO nonsense and predictions.> I bet. Elo ratings weren't introduced until 1971.
Now maybe you can take some time off and explain me why it counted the most (no, higher stakes aren't a good argument). |
|
| Sep-25-14 | | Everett: ELO/chessmetrics, pedant. You bet.
Of course higher stakes.
I suggest you never become a coach of any team which season ends with a qualifying tournament. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
